You are here:

Summary Search Results...

The Commission denied the claimant's request to renew her benefits. She appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Division of the SST, which found that she could receive benefits only within a period of 52 weeks after they began. Since her benefit period began in September 2013, she would normally have had to claim any outstanding benefits prior to September 2014. An extension of that period for another year might have been available, but that would allow the claimant to receive benefits only until September 2015.The claimant returned to the country outside the benefit period. The claimant appealed the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division of the SST, which concluded that her appeal had no reasonable chance of success and refused her application for leave to appeal. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The claimant established a benefit period on December 16, 2007. The claimant did not receive benefits until August 22, 2009 by reason of the allocation of a severance pay. Her benefit period was extended to the maximum period provided under section 10 (14) of the Employment Insurance Act. In the end, at the time where the claimant started receiving benefits 89 weeks of her benefit period had elapsed and she was eligible to receive benefits only for the balance of the 104 weeks. Unfortunately, the Umpire, nor the BOR and nor the Commission has the authority to amend the law. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

The claimant disagreed with the benefit period fixed by the Commission, auguing that it should be longer due to his many years of employment. An appeal to the Board of Referees was dismissied. The BOR stated that the subsection 12(2) of the Act establishes the maximum number of weeks for which emplyment insurance benefits may be paid in a benefit period, based on the number of insurable employment hours accumulated in the qualifying period and the applicable regional rate of unemployment. Section 10(8)(a) states no further benefits are payable to the claimant in their benefit period, including for the reason that benefits have been paid for the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid under section 12. The claimant's appeal before the Umpire is dismissed.

The claimant's last day of employment was December 17, 2008. He applied for benefits on December 22, 2008. A benefit period was then established December 21, 2008 with the two week waiting period for the weeks of December 21st and 28th. He then received benefits. The claimant's employer went into bankruptcy in December 2008. In May 2009, the claimant received from the Trustee in bankruptcy an amount under the Wage Eatners Protection Program. On july 15, 2009, he was advised by the Commission taht the amount received would be deducted from his benefits from December 14, 2008 to January 3, 2009. His two week waiting period was then attributed to the weeks starting January 4th and 11th, 2009. The claimant submits that since his two week waiting period started on January 4 and not to have received benefits before that date, his benefit period started at the earliest on January 4, 2009 and should qualify for Long Tenure Worker. The Commission on the other hand submits that in this case the benefit period was established before January 4, 2009 and that according to section 10(2) of the Employment insurance Act as amended by Bill C-50, the claimant is not eligible for the extended benefits provided under the Bill. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the Umpire.

The claimant took parental leave and received 28 weeks of benefits under the QPIP from May 5 to November 15, 2008. On October 22, 2008, the employer issued a ROE which indicated that he was terminated. The claimant accumulated 919 insurable hours during his qualifying period. The claimant lived in the Montreal area where the unemployment rate was 7.5% and was entitled to receive 26 weeks of EI benefits. The claimant argued that had he not taken parental leave, he would have been entitled to 45 or 52 weeks, like everyone else. According to a regulation made in this context, the EI qualifying period cannot be extended for any week in which a person has received provincial benefits such as QPIP benefits. This principle of equivalence extends to benefits paid under a provincial plan a recognition that is similar to maternity or parental benefits paid under the EI program, applied to any future claim for EI benefits. According to a regulation made in this context, the EI qualifying period cannot be extended dor any week in which a person has received provincial benefits for birth or adoption such as QPIP benefits. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed by the BOR and the Umpire.

The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant was entitled to additional weeks of regular benefits. The claimant received 15 weeks of sick benefits, 34 weeks of regular benefits and thought she should be entitled to additional benefits even though she had received eight additional weeks as a LTW. The clear reading of s. 12(2) states that the claimant is entitled to a maximum of 50 weeks and that would be combined special and regular benefits. The claimant then only had one week left. The appeal of the Commission is allowed by the Umpire.

Claimant was entitled to 29 weeks of benefits, 15 of which were issued as sickness benefits. He could not qualify for regular benefits from the termination of his sickness benefits until the date of his recovery which was after the termination of his benefit period. Argued that his benefit period should have been extended. Request denied: circumstance not covered in the legislation.

Benefit period effective 7-10-90. July 93 claimant received a payment in settlement of his wrongful dismissal. The allocation prevented claimant from establishing an interruption of earnings until 19-11-90 which coincided with the coming into force of Bill C-21, reducing entitlement from 50 to 41 weeks of benefits. Umpire ruled that the amending legislation is not applicable to the claimant's claim, he is entitled to the period of benefits according to the law which existed at the date of his application on 7-10-90. FCA focused on the use of the word "established" and not "commenced" in the transitional provision, there is no doubt that there had been a benefit period "established" in favour of the claimant effective 7-10-90 before the provisions determining its length were repealed. FCA maintained Umpire's decision.

Claimant requested that his regular claim be terminated pursuant to 9(6)(d) of the Act in favour of a fishing claim. Request denied. S. 85(1)(a) of the Regulations provides benefits to a fisherman who "is not qualified under section 6 of the Act to receive benefits.

Claimant disputes the fact that her benefit period kept running following the expiration of her sickness benefits while she was for a time still incapable of work, and until she had recovered enough to collect regular benefits.

The insured alleges that the applicable paragraph is 9(2), which states that the benefits period is 52 weeks, and not 11(2). These clauses do not deal with the same thing. One established the duration of the benefits period and the other the maximum benefits payable during that period.

After 42 weeks his UI ran out as this was his maximum entitlement. It is not correct to say that a claimant is entitled to 52 weeks of UI, this being the maximum of a claimant and varies in each individual case.

13 insured weeks and was paid 13 weeks of initial benefits and 26 of regionally extended. She was told she would be entitled to 50 weeks. Misinformation does not entitle a claimant to benefits to which not otherwise entitled.

Ceased work 19-6-85. Claim filed 28-2-86. 18 insured weeks in qualifying period. Hence, claimant only eligible for 18 weeks of benefit plus extended benefits based on regional rate. Received 34 weeks in total. Not entitled to one full year.

Maximum benefits not paid because there was no interruption of earnings following the last day worked. If severance pay is declared to be earnings and allocated, that period is deducted from his benefit period.

The claimant was entitled to a maximum benefit period of 52 weeks. What she does not understand is that once her benefit period started running, it continued to run despite any disentitlement or disqualification.

Benefit period generally continues for 52 weeks. A claimant who finds employment is not entitled to receive UI while employed. But the benefit period is not thereby terminated; it continues to exist and may be reactivated later with no waiting period toserve.

The issue is whether a period of disentitlement is included in claimant's 52-week benefit period. See CUB 8978. Since claimant was properly disentitled for 5 weeks, potential entitlement in her benefit period is reduced by 5 weeks.

Goes without saying that a benefit period is not established if an earlier period has not ended. Because the earlier period ended only on 26-11-83, board erred in treating claim made on 10-3-83 as initial claim rather than renewed claim.